this will do is prompt investigations of every element of the birth of donald trump, and much more important, let's get clear, no more birth certificates. i want to see tax returns. >> tax returns, that's the latest. melissa harris-perry with the nation. thanks for joining us. >> you can have the last word online at thelastword.msnbc.com. >> thanks for having me on last hour. thanks to you for staying with us for the next hour. this is the u.s. navy ship built in newport news, virginia, in 1969. the uss mount whitney is a big command and control ship which essentially means it can oversee really complex operations that the military is involved in. it was deployed to haiti, for example, in 1994 as the united

states played a roll in ousting the military hunta that had taken over that country. remember when john mccain said today we are all georgians, when russia and the nation of georgia were having a war, and john mccain wanted us to start fighting russia alongside the georgians? it was the uss whitney deployed to bring humanitarian aid. it was the first ship to reach that georgia n part it went to. that's considered to be the most advanced command and control ship that the united states has ever floated. it is where the u.s. has been running the libyan war out of. between the admiral and a u.s. army general, this is where they've been running the war in libya from. as of last night, the uss mount whitney we think is not going to

be the headquarters for the libyan war. that war effort will now be run by nato. the no-fly zone part of it and the bombing gadhafi's ground troops part of it which they call something like protecting civilians. this ship named after the highest peak in the continental united states will no longer be the place from which the libyan war is run. does that mean american personnel will be doing any less of the war making in libya? and are u.s. taxpayers funding any less of the war making in libya, even if the united states military is not running it from that particular ship? answers to those questions are as yet unseen. but here is what president obama promised on that score tonight in an address about libya from the national defense university in washington, d.c. >> to lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in bosnia in the

1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.enforcement o and the no-fly zone. last night nato decided to take. this transfer from thened at t no lla pla on wednesday. the united states will play a supporting role, including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, capabilities to jam regime communications. because of this transition to a broader nato-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation to our military and to american taxpayers will be reduced significantly. >> risks and costs to the american taxpayers and to the

military will be reduced significantly. the u.s. role will shift towards intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue and jamming communications. today brought word one u.s. submarine that has been in the military effort in libya has now been removed from the area. that is one sign that the u.s. is beginning to scale down its effort. that said, the proportion of all the air missions being flown over libya is still substantially american. of 178 air missions flown in the last 28 hours or so, 99 of them were flown by the u.s., only 79 by other coalition nations. they also revealed that additional aircraft are being used in the mission. american pilots aren't just flying high altitude fixed wing planes over libya, they are also flying aircraft that are flown much closer to the ground. wart hogs and inspector gun ships. the idea with these types of

aircraft, you you can do mortar getting compared to what you do with high flying fighters and bombers. as president obama addressed the nation on day ten of the american involvement in this war in libya, the multi lateral character of the intervention, the international nature of war was sort of his point. the u.s. would not be the lead in libya, but the international character of the intervention was a key reason why he committed the u.s. to this at all, and why he thought it was a good idea. >> america cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. but that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. in this particular country, libya, at this particular moment

we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. we had a unique ability to stop that violence. and the international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of arab countries, and a plea for help from the libyan people themselves. we also have the ability to stop gadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting american troops on the ground. to brush aside america's responsibility as a leader and more profoundly our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. the united states of america is different. >> the united states of america is different. but he's being very careful to

talk about this particular country and this particular moment, and then describing very libya-specific reasons why this intervention made sense to him and his calculation of whether or not the u.s. should get involved. the press of the united states of america. the libyan intervention and tonight's speech in particular already as the beltway commentary cluk over how the president justifies use of american military force, how a president elected in part because of national revulgs about the previous president's use of military force, how he justifies military action of his own. whether or not you like this intervention in libya, it is clear the president's explanation for why it was justified matches what he said he would do with military force, what he would see as justifiable use of the u.s. military. it is clear it matches what he said about that issue at the very start of his presidency, when in the first year as

president he accepted the nobel peace prize. >> more and more we know how to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians by their own governor, or to stop a civil war whose violence can engulf and in tire region. i believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grnd aitas i t lks,rntr pc scarred by war. inaction tears at our conscious and can lead to more costly intervention later. that's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace. america's commitment to global security will never waiver. but in a world in which threats are more difficult use and missions more complex, america cannot act alone. >> president obama speaking in

2009. america cannot act alone. here he was tonight. >> we know that the united states is the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. in such cases, we should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be america's alone. >> 2009, america cannot act alone. 2011, the burden of action should not be america's alone. whether you are for or against american participation in an international intervention like this war in libya, it is the type of intervention that this president said at the outset he would favor as president. as for the differences between him and the previous guy? that's where the differences between him and george w. bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the u.s. would not make it the goal of our war in libya to topple the dictator there, ala,

iraq. >> if we tried to overthrow gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. we would likely have to put u.s. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. the dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater, so would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. to be blunt, we went down that road in iraq. thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about iraq's future, but regime change there took eight years, thousands of american and iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. that is not something we can afford to repeat in libya. >> no military imposed regime

change, even in the context of other means. that is the official policy of the u.s. government. also interesting throughout the speech president obama consistently referred to soldiers and diplomats, diplomats and soldiers, talked about people using both sides of american power, using american force and using american persuasion. thelation the idea o diplomacy an persuasion there has been a hallmark of this presidency. it was quite literally specific and evident. tonight, i think it dovetails with the end of his speech that defined international persuasion and leadership as the apex of american strength. the idea that america can intervene in lots of places, but it will choose to intervene in places where it can persuade lots of other countries to come along, too. there was a telling moment nine days before the u.s. intervened in libya, when president obama's

director of intelligence james clapper gave his assessment of what was going to happen in libya between gadhafi's forces and the rebels. watch. >> just think from a standpoint of attrition that over time, i mean, this kind of stalemate back and forth, i think longer term that the regime will prevail. >> over the longer term, the regime will prevail. over the longer term, gadhafi will win. again, that was before this international intervention. it was the opinion of the intelligence community that gadhafi over time was going to win. and then came international intervention. un security council votes for no-fly zone, calls for all necessary measures to protect libyan civilians. here is the reaction on the ground in the rebel strong hold of benghazi as they watched that un vote for intervention, cheering in the streets. rebels were losing at that point, forced back from benghazi. gadhafi forces were about to take benghazi back, and the

international community decided to step in with force. it was a decision president obama referenced directly tonight in terms of the dramatic nature of its timing. >> we knew that if we waited one more day, benghazi, a city nely the size of charlotte could suffer a massae tt would have reverb ated across theeasoning and and stained the conscience of the world. it was not in our national interest to let that happen. i refused to let that happen. and so nine days ago after consulting the bipartisan leadership of congress, i authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce un security council resolution 1973. >> the president says a massacre was averted in benghazi. a massacre was averted in libya.

but what about after that? what then? what now? by all counts, the only reason the rebels are holding ground in libya at this point, the only reason they are advancing on tripoli tonight we are told is because of that international air power. it is not like we stepped in to prevent a massacre, then backed off. the rebels utterly depend on u.s. and coalition support indefinitely, as long as gadhafi survives. if the u.s. and the rest of the international coalition left and gadhafi was still there, what do you think would happen to the rebels? the rebels could go any sent on dependence on international forces had relief thursday when people supporting the rebels in benghazi had a thank you rally, thank you, coalition in the city of benghazi. but again, what happens now? what happens next? >> i know that some americans continue to have questions about our efforts in libya. gadhafi has not yet stepped down from power. and until he does, libya will

remain dangerous. moreover, even after gadhafi leaves power, 40 years of tyranny has left libya fractured, and without strong civil institutions. the transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the libyan people will be a difficult task. and while the united states will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community and more importantly a task for the libyan people themselves. >> so the united states wants gadhafi gone. the united states will not use military force to force him out. if gadhafi is ousted, the u.s. will participate in efforts to stabilize libya, but the u.s. will not lead those efforts. in the meantime, the united states will participate in an open-ended international intervention to stop gadhafi, but the goal of that mission day to day and the time line on which it will be carried out are, frankly, unknown.

for all the clammering here at home, for presidential communication to the nation on this, well, you got it, america. you got the clearest possible presidential statement about the muddiest possible on-going indetermine at, international situation otherwise known as a war. discuss. i know what works differently than many other allergy medications. omnaris. omnaris, to the nose! did you know nasal symptoms like congestion can be caused by allergic inflammation? omnaris relieves your symptoms by fighting inflammation. side effects may include headache, nosebleed, and sore throat. i tossed those allergy symptoms out of my party. [ man ] omnaris. ask your doctor. battling nasal allergy symptoms? omnaris combats the cause. get omnaris for only $11 at omnaris.com. and here's what we did today in homes all across america: we created the electricity that powered the alarm clocks and brewed the coffee. we heated the bathwater and gave kelly a cleaner ride to school. cooked the cube steaks and steamed the veggies.

entertained dad, and mom, and a neighbor or two. kept watch on the house when they slept. and tomorrow we could do even more. we're cleaner, domestic, abundant and ready now. we're america's natural gas. the smarter power today. learn more at anga.us.

objectives consistent with the pledge that i made to the american people at the outset of our military operations. i said that america's role would be limited and that we would not put ground troops into libya, that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. tonight we are fulfilling that pledge. >> this american military mission in libya has been hard to get your head around. one political consequence of that is that it has also been hard for president obama's critics in washington to get

their political attacks on him about libya straight. hasn't stopped them from trying, that in all its unintentional hilarious glory is next.

many americans view our military action in lbds with anxiety and in certainty. they wonder why u.s. forces are once again engaged in combat action against an arab regime in the middle east. they wonder when this operation will end. and when their loved ones will return. and they're asking another reasonable question.

what is the mission? >> the top republican in the senate had not talked about libya before today. imagine being mitch mcconnell on a situation like this. knowing if you even try to say beep about your solemnly held concerns about the war on libya, every single person seeing you talk about it will imagine the word iraq! iraq! iraq! flashing over your head the entire time you are talking. no wonder mitch mcconnell waited this long to say anything. the imaginary flashing giant iraq over his head problem also goes for joe lieberman, guys like john mccain, for the panel of iraq war cheerleaders, even wolfowicz who were asked to give opinions on the latest war at the conservative think tank. surprise, they are all in favor. for the part of republican and conservative establishment that never met a military intervention they didn't like, no matter of the character, point of the war, location of

the war, anything else going around it, you can pretty much bet the farm if the question is war, the answer is yes. but for the rest of the republican and conservative establishment that is frankly more animated by a desire to criticize obama, the libyan war is more of a pickle. you might be reflexively pro-war, but if a democratic president agrees with you on joining the war. what wins? the republicans that find themselves in this trap, they're flipping. step one. demand u.s. military intervention in libya. step two, after president obama inter convenience in libya say uh-oh pose u.s. military intervention in libya. step three, hope no one remembers what you did in step one. for example, this is the chair

of the republican foreign relations committee in the house. at the end of february she said the u.s. should enforce a no-fly zone in libya. two weeks later, the president said we would do just that. so then she did an immediate 180, questioned why we needed that no-fly zone she used to like the idea of, because she said no national security interests were at stake. same for the senator on the armed services committee. three weeks ago, buck mccann went after the president for in his words doing nothing on libya. then president obama announced that we will intervene in libya, which prompted mr. mckeon to come out after his own advise, to point out this action in libya that he had been demanding. there are others in congress that followed this same befuddled pattern of this position without portfolio. for ease of future reference,

these people shall be henceforth known as ts gingrich caucus. >> what would you do about libya? >> exercise a no-fly zone this evening. >> that's step one. step two after president obama does intervene in libya? >> i would not have intervened. i think there were a lot of other ways to effect gadhafi. joining us, chris hayes, msnbc contribute or and washington editor of the nation magazine. good to see you. >> great to see you, too. >> republicans are struggling to find a way to criticize mr. obama on a military decision that they kind of agreed with in the beginning, or at least were demanding before he did it. what is the next step in that struggle? what is their next argument about what the president is doing wrong? >> so i think the next step in the struggle is going to be very much rooted in what happens in libya, and here's the reason why. two reasons. one, because there was no congressional vote, no one in congress is actually tethered to

a position on this issue. yes, we can play the tape on "the rachel maddow show," and that counts for something, but gingrich and a lot of other members of congress hedged their bets. when things go poorly, they can attack from any ideological direction they want to because they are not committed on the floor of the congress support tg. we all remember the sad fate that befell john kerry when he decided to run, largely on implement agency of the iraq war having voted for it. that constraint is off the table. it is beneficial to the republicans, they can make any possible criticism from any ideological direction or tactical direction whatsoever, as long as they think they can kind of make political hay out of it. >> you think the vote that happened in the senate, unanimous vote in the senate at the beginning of march, which was not use of force authorization, nothing that direct, but it was in support of the general idea of what the president went on to do. you don't think that unanimous

vote in the senate will bind any senators from future political criticism? >> i definitely don't. i think that their opponents will be able to bring it up. but i think for the most part, they're going to be free-lancing. the other thing that is fascinating about the dynamic, there's a consensus against this intervention. if you look at the polling data, the people that are most supportive of conservative republicans and the reason is generally they are pro-military intervention, nationalists, believe in american supremacy, also have been told by their leaders for years that this is what america has to do, special burden to lead the world, enter into wars in the middle east. it is very hard to turn on a dime and now say that's not the case. so they actually have to negotiate their own constituency as well, which will be interesting to see how it develops. my sense is if things go poorly, support will drop, they will feel more lib rated to throw

whatever criticism they can at the intervention. >> i wonder if you sketched out the way the right is going to deal with this in the future. the president tonight gave a very detailed, very clear self ren shall, repetitive idea of multilateralism. the idea that american leadership means diplomacy alongside force, and diplomacy means getting the world go along with what we want, which means participate rather than lead from a military perspective. that is multilateralism. that's something hawkish republicans like to criticize in theory. so doesn't this open an opportunity for republicans to go whole hog john bolton on the guy, let's get out of the u.n. and the rest of it? >> yes. and the interesting thing whrks the president talked about the false choice, sketched out the isolationist argument to use a brute word on one side, and a

more hawkish argument, regime change argument in the other. saying we reject both those, taking the middle path. the fact is he opened political attack from both ends. there will be republicans that say we never should have done this, like mccain, for instance, and there will be a lot more if this goes poorly. then there will be republicans that say we're doing half measures, we need to lead. we shouldn't take second seat to france, et cetera. so there's both of those in the republican camps. there are plausible attacks from both sides of the middle path the president sketched out in the speech. >> do you think anything happened in the speech to effect substantively this debate about the president seeking overt congressional authority for what he's going to do in the future or what he has already done? do you think anything changes about that or the debate stays as is. >> i was struck by the fact it wasn't mentioned, alluded to. they talked about talk to go

bipartisan members of congress. but that remained unenunciated. that's problematic for a lot of reasons. but partly because congress doesn't want to vote for all the reasons i just mentioned. if you're john boehner, you're happier not voting on that libya intervention. six months ago you can say whatever you want and no one throws that vote in your face. the fact of the matter, this is a creep of unilateral authority by the executive branch in sort of military operations, it is also on congress who just sort of are shirking. they haven't demanded justification of the authority in mass, and it is on them to come forward and ask for that if they want to have that argument. >> but it is a key predictive point you made there. that the politics of this can be explained by the fact that all of the political incentives point away from there being a vote like this in congress, even with the principled arguments

point from the left and right. and that's valuable. chris hayes, msnbc contribute or, washington editor of "the nation" and smart man. thank you for joining us. the great democratic hey, wait a second, that has nothing to do with the budget response of 2011. in wisconsin, td republican governor and legislature redefined pure i can victory, and in indiana, democrats that have been out of the state more than a month fighting this sort of thing just returned, having sort of won by the fact they left. now that fight may be coming to washington. the whole story is moving very fast and we have details up next. that would be awesome! sure. like that will happen. don't just think about it. spend 10 minutes at lending tree and save up to $272 a month. lord of the carry-on. sovereign of the security line. you never take an upgrade fogr

u renaign of the security line. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i deserve this. [ male announcer ] you do, business pro. you do. go national. go like a pro. ben and his family live on this block. ben's a re/max agent, and he's a big part of this community. re/max agents know their markets, and they care enough to get to know you, too. nobody sells more real estate than re/max. visit remax.com today. [ male announcer ] from advances in medical imaging that help doctors detect diseases earlier. to innovations in renewable power that bring america closer to energy independence. to investments that help businesses grow and create jobs. ♪ at ge, we're using imagination at work...

ecomagination... healthymagination... and capital... to create advanced technology that's good for the economy... for the environment... for everyone. ♪

here is how you tell the difference between a republican governor in 2011 who wants to be president and one who just wants to be famous. republican governor mitch daniels of indiana appears to take everything about himself very seriously, including his own presidential ambitions. but having been george w. bush's budget director, having been budget director in an administration that turned a projected $236 billion national surplus into a $400 billion national deficit during his 29-month tenure, that is not necessarily a fiscal political asset. if you are mitch daniels and dragging that liability behind you on your hopeful way to the white house, hey, i was w's

budget guy, if you drag that behind you in a potential presidential run, you do not want on the other side of your politics a scott walker problem. you do not also want to be a lightning rod for everything the democratic base holds dear and frankly had previously forgotten it holds dear. you do not want to be that guy from the left and right heading into a proip primary, let alone a general election. so one way you can tell mitch daniels wants to be president and not just a famous republican governor is the way he and his fellow hoosier republicans are caving, and they are caving now. today in wisconsin, the nation was transfixed by the 14 democratic senators leaving wisconsin to deny the state legislature a quorum, right? scott walker and the wisconsin stripped union rights, more on that in a moment. a big update on that. but a week after the wisconsin democrats took off, 39 of 40 of indiana's house democrats also took off. they have been in illinois for

the past five weeks. same idea. deny the legislature a quorum so the republicans can strip union rights and also in this case so they can't cut the knees from public schooling. today, the indiana democrats are back. they are saying they got most of what they wanted. the indiana legislature, look at this, convened at 5:00 p.m. today for the first time in five weeks, with actual democrats there. you see the thank you signs from people supporting the democratic legislators. democrats will still vote no on what the republicans are trying to do, but the deal they got for standing firm for five weeks is that governor mitch daniels executive order stripping union rights will not become permanent indiana legislation, stripping union rights. the republicans in the indiana legislature and mitch daniels decided to let the idea of making permanent the union stripping thing, they decided to let that go. the great republican overreach of 2011 has sounded to the

democratic base like an alarm clock ringing, waking them up after a long time of being asleep and taken for granted. but to republicans with aspirations of running for bigger political office, what sounds like an alarm clock to democrats, to the republicans, it just sounds like an alarm. have you heard what happened today on the wisconsin part of this? big news. that's next. [ groans ] [ marge ] pss

consd? phillipls [ groans ] gniurge ] pss n ingr trks nurly with your colon than stimulant laxatives, for effective relief of constipation without cramps. thanks. good morning, students. today we're gonna continue...

for a generation, the democratic party has taken a lot of its base for granted. on abortion rights, democrats brag about how open minded they are about pro-life democrats getting elected and how tolerant they are of abortion politics in the democratic party, even among the most high profile officials, all the while saying the base will still keep voting for democrats, even though democrats haven't given a reason to do so. today, the democratic senate other campaign sent out a mailer. it is a fund-raising e-mail, asking for donations to help keep the u.s. senate democratic, in part on the basis of republicans going after abortion rights at the federal level.

remains to be seen whether pro-chois democratic base used to being thrown under the bus by the democratic party will respond to fund-raising attempts like this. i think it is also an unanswered question, whether republicans will have electoral trouble with this issue, too. there is a big coordinated anti-abortion push in the states by republican legs tours and governors this year. we reported on this show about some small government republican opposition to that push, in places like wyoming, where the libertarian minded leave me alone model of conservatism isn't a beltway construct but doesn't translate to policy, but where republicans get on the floor of the legislature and argue against this big government conservative proposal to force the government into your doctor's appointment, give doctors a script to read to patients, regardless of the doctor's medical opinion. now you have the democratic party in this senate fund-raising letter attacking republicans for saying they were

focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, while instead what they work on is abortion, abortion, abortion. at mother jones, kate shep ard highlights that disconnect on abortion issues on the right goes so far to include a move by cliff stearns of florida, who along with most of the rest of the republicans voted to de-fund planned parenthood last month, she calls on cliff stearns of florida to overtly spend federal taxpayer money to directly support the anti-abortion quack safe medical clinics that try to trick women into believing they can get an abortion there, but instead subject them to anti-abortion hectoring masked as medical care. the crisis centers, in 2006 when they investigated what these centers do, they found 20 of 23 clinics investigated, 20 of 23, provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion.

regardless how you feel aut cris pgncy ceer us reblan vitogi federal taxpayer money to them, to spend taxpayer monnces, jo ssendheutng spendi meag he is ath compliced puican message. in wisconsin, governor scott walker made the idea that wisconsin is broke the whole pretense of his union stripping political misadventure. governor walker called his union stripping bill a budget repair bill. remember? the governor has consistently touted his willingness to take political hits on this issue because he said he had to do the hard work to cut wisconsin spending and cut wisconsin's budget. he said his bill would cut state spending by 6%. milwaukee sentinel reports that scott walker's budget in wisconsin will increase state

spending by 1%. so not only is the union stripping thing not about the budget, his budget is not about the budget. the republican party set up scott walker to be a national hero. they thought this would be a popular fight for the governor to pick. but turns out wisconsin was pretty dramatically against the governor. he lost the argument in terms of public opinion, and the means by which he had to get this through having lost the argument have become desperate to the point of comical. republicans passed that union stripping bill in wisconsin by taking it outed of what had been a budget bill, calling it nonfiscal, and passing without a quorum in a big rush at night while democrats said it was illegal. opponents sued on procedural grounds and a judge had granted a temporary restraining order, preventing the wisconsin secretary of state from publishing that law, that would also prevent the law from taking effect. so the republican senate leader in wisconsin went around the judge's ruling and just had the law published anyway, somewhere

else, by a different state agency that doesn't really do that. even the head of that agency says he doesn't think them publishing that makes it law. he told the journal sentinel i don't think this act makes it become effective. my understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the newspaper for it to become effective. but they are deciding it is law, over the judge's ruling, over the opinion of that agency they got to sort of fake publish it. they're just going to call it law, and start enforcing it, or at least they're going to try to. associated press reported that governor walker's administration started taking steps to adjust workers' paychecks to reflect the new law that the governor says is in effect, even though it doesn't seem true. house republicans at the federal level are considering voting on their own scott walker union stripping bill. it would effect employees in

aviation and rail. when presented with evidence how the union stripping thing worked out in wisconsin, if you were a covering that ategist, would you union stripping agenda. thanks for being on the show. nice to have you here. >> great. thank you. >> despite the big show of support for union rights in wisconsin and across the midwest, national republicans want to take this to d.c. what does this look like at the federal level? >> like you said, they are going after air and rail workers. the way it works now, if you want to form a union, you just need to get a majority of the workers who turn out to vote. but the way that republicans would like to do it and the way it's been for many years is you need to get majority of all workers, even ones that don't turn out to vote. if you don't turn out to vote, essentially you vote no.

imagine if mitt romney votes against barack obama, under republican rules, you don't turn up to vote, you essentially vote for barack obama. imagine how hard it would be for mitt romney to win. >> in terms of how this will proceed at the federal level, if this is done as part of the faa reauthorization bill, a big reauthorization bill for a big agency, is the expectation that the senate, the democratic controlled senate would vote against the entire faa reauthorization because of this anti-union language? are they setting this up for presidential veto? >> the fight is being led in the house by john mica, who received a lot of money from the airline industry, and it is likely to pass the house. the senate like you said is where it might get held up. tom har kin and jay rockefeller have a lot of power in the fight, both said they are against what the republicans are trying to do. if it gets to the president's desk, he has to decide if it has this provision, is he going to veto it, and potentially make a

lot of republicans mad, maybe make some moderates mad or is he going to sign it and alienate his union supporters. >> in terms of the support on both sides about this, what do we know about how democrats are strategizing against this and frankly how unions are strat jiesing against this. do you expect from your reporting there will be the in the streets mobilization whave seen in the states at the federal level? >> if we see it at the federal level it will be because of the grass roots at the states. right now there's more interest from the media, from progressive democrats than we've seen in years. because of what happened in ohio, people are crossing state lines. if they make it a big deal at the federal level, you could see them protesting in the thousands like we've seen in wisconsin. >> what i have seen in the course of my lifetime looking at

democratic politics is when particularly issues that effect the base bubble up from the states and politics at a local level, that is when the national party has the strongest basis on which to take those issues into national mobilization. too often try to do stuff top down to be effected i have. i think you're right, they are building from the bottom up. great to have you here. thanks for helping with this insight. >> great, thank you. apparently liberals just misunderstand the koch brothers. ed schultz has much more on that surprising report coming up. and on this show, the republican governor of the great state of maine could not stop himself. he said he'd stop himself, but that darn art showing people who work for a living wouldn't stop annoying him. an update next. stay with us.

>> announcer: this past year alone there's been a 67% spike in companies embracing the cloud-- big clouds, small ones, public, private, even hybrid. your data and apps must move easily and securely to reach many clouds, not just one. that's why the network that connects, protects, and lets your data move fearlessly through the clouds means more than ever. ♪ professional driver on a closed course. ♪ do not attempt at home. always wear your seat belt. ♪ and please drive responsibly. [ male announcer ] it's the most fun you can legally have. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers on the c-class.

[ male announcer ] you always dreamed of living in a place like this. but the land can be challenging. that's where our expertise comes in. your john deere dealer will find the best solution to get the most for your money and the most out of your property. because we know you love your land... every last bit of it. deere season is going on now. go to johndeere.com/tractors and get 1,000 dollars off 2520 and 2320 compact tractors with the purchase of two or more implements.

even though i'm a great driver, and he's... not so much. well, for a driver like you, i would recommend our new snapshot discount. this little baby keeps track of your great driving habits, so you can save money. [sighs] amazing. it's like an extra bonus savings. [ cackling ] he's my ride home. how much can the snapshot discount save you? call or click today.

one of the hallmarks of a i overreach and not just reach. here's what that looks like in the great state of maine. maine's republican governor paul lepage was elected in november on the power of 38% of the vote

in a three way race. over the weekend at the order of 38% of the vote governor lepage, this mural in the state department of labor, a mural documenting the history of labor in the state of maine, this mural was disappeared. this of course is what the room used to look like while the mural was up. now it looks like this. the spackle seems decorative. last week the spokesperson for governor 38% said the mural would remain in the room until the governor 38% administration found it a new home. this week they just changed their mind. not so much. mr. lepage's press secretary saying the mural, quote, is in storage awaiting relocation to a more appropriate venue. we understand that not everyone agrees with this decision but the maine department of labor has to be focused on the job at hand. focused on the job at hand, which is spending the weekend taking down art the governor doesn't agree with. jobs, jobs, jobs.

diabetes testing? what else is new? you get the blood, hope it's enough, it's-- what's this? freestyle lite® blood glucose test strip. sure, i'll try it, but-- [beep] wow. yep, that's the patented freestyle zipwik™ design. it's like it-- [both] targets the blood. yeah, draws it right in. the test starts fast. you need just a third the blood of one touch.® okay. freestyle test strips.

i'll take 'em. sure. call or click-- we'll send you strips and a meter, free. can't i just have these? freestyle lite test strips. call or click today. this is what the control room looks like that nsh ow imananatronic puppet who just says things that the puppeteers program in this room. not really. not yet. but control rooms are important much more important are control regulatory commission simulator. this photo was taken two years ago when the simulator's reactor was operating at 100% power. he posted this on the website all things nuclear. he has used red circles and lines to highlight various

indicators and monitors and such but the takeaway for us with this photo is everything's most definitely on. everything seems to be working or at least telling you if it is not. now, look at this. this is the second photo he has posted on all things nuclear. this is statewide have been taken saturday at the very real not a simulator control room for the fukushima daiichi nuclear plant's heavily damaged reactor number two. all of the red lines and circles make it very clear that the control panel is offering up not a lot. no time on the clock. the monitors are dark. it does not appear to be an electricity issue because overhead lights are on but the control room does not seem to be in control of anything. all of this keeps unfolding at the fukushima daiichi plant without any public appearances by the president of tepco, sort of the tony hayward of this crisis. he has not appeared in public since march 13th. "the washington post" reporting today that the man in charge of th